Female legal heirs are not entitled to property shares if arrangements for property division were made prior to the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

The present second appeal is preferred by the 6^th defendant against the judgment and decree, dated 01.03.2008, passed in A.S.No.328 of 2003 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.06.2003, passed in O.S.No.7 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents 1 and 2 herein and the legal heirs of the deceased respondents 1 and 2 herein / plaintiffs are impleaded as respondents 11 to 14 herein. The defendants 1 to 5 in the suit are the respondents 9, 3, 10, 4 and 5 herein respectively. The legal heirs of the deceased respondents 4 and 5 herein / defendants 4 and 5 are impleaded as respondents 15 to 20 herein. The legal heirs of the deceased 3^rd respondent herein / 2^nd defendant were already impleaded as parties in the appellate stage itself. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as per the ranking in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition. The averments stated in the plaint are that the 1^st item of the suit property was purchased in the name of Seethaiammal who is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiffs under registered sale deed dated 29.10.1937. Since the original sale deed was stolen, hence the certified copy of the document is filed. After the death of Seethai Ammal it devolved around her son namely Srinivasa Iyengar who died intestate on 04.06.1977. The 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs, 1^st defendant are the sons and 2, 3, 4 and 5 are daughters of the said Srinivasa Iyengar. The mother died on 28.10.1982 and she also died intestate. Now the properties are available for partition. The plaintiffs have five sisters but they have no right of partition and they lost their right to partition on account of the plaintiffs having been in possession and enjoyment of the same openly exclusively and adversely for over the statutory period ousting the rights, if any of their sisters. Hence the sisters are not necessary parties and not necessary to implead them based on false contention of 1^st defendant in his reply notice. The 2^nd item of house property was also purchased in the name of the Seethaiammal under registered sale deed dated 21.09.1961 and the original sale deed was taken (stolen) away by the 1^st defendant and the same is with him. Except the aforesaid two properties there are no other immovable properties but through reply notice dated 30.11.1992 1^st defendant had set out that there is a property at Kulathumedu, Puthur but there is no document available in the name of the plaintiffs’ father. The plaintiffs are unable to trace title for which four boundaries are given by the 1^st defendant. But the plaintiffs are not having any objection for partition of the said property if the 1^st defendant bring the documents. The plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3^rd and they do not want any division between them interese and may be jointly allotted 2/3^rd. The 1^st defendant is entitled to 1/3^rd. The 3^rd item of the movable properties are jewels belonging to mother and also vessels worth about Rs.5,000/-. The plaintiffs are entitled to share in 3^rd item also. The 1^st defendant had taken away the same along with the documents, but the 1^st defendant denies the very existence. There is an iron safe with silver vessels belonging to the 2^nd plaintiff, it remains locked and the key is with the 1^st defendant and it is available for division and set out as item 3 hereunder. In the 1^st item of the suit property out of 92 cents 80 cents alone is cultivable portion and out of which 53 ce